Appeals court held that the state of Illinois, which allowed over three months before requiring proceedings to determine the fate of property such as cars taken by police in a drug bust, must be subject to administrative proceedings more quickly to possibly allow the owner to regain possession of the property.
(Updated June 2008)

Supreme Court held that a district court did not violate the Sentencing Guidelines by giving probation to a guilty party who would have been sent to prison under Guideline standards. Judges have the discretion to review all circumstances and can justify greater or lower sentences.
(Updated May 2008)

Appeals court held that border officials may search laptops and other electronic equipment without a warrant or without reasonable suspicion. So long as searches are not done in an offensive manner, they are a normal part of border control.
(Updated May 2008)

Appeals court held that when a defendant did not have enough cash to cover a payment ordered by a court upon conviction of a crime, the government could seize the defendant’s interest in his homestead. The state homestead exemption is overridden by federal criminal law.
(Updated March 2008)

Appeals court upheld the conviction of an adult who attempted to solicit sex with a supposed 13-year-old. The government informant posing as the child did not initiate the illegal transaction, so it was not entrapment.
(Updated March 2008)

Appeals court held that a food company could lose its license to operate based on the criminal conviction of a company officer who paid a bribe to a government inspector. Even if paying such bribes was common in the industry, and was extorted by the inspector, the company is responsible.
(Updated January 2008)

Appeals court held that the forfeiture of a large quantity of cash not reported when being taken out of the country does not violate the Eighth Amendment restriction on excessive fines. Taking large quantities of unreported cash out of the country is linked to criminal activity, so the penalty is not excessive.
(Updated January 2008)

Appeals court held that a trial court may impose a sentence that exceeds the maximum under the Sentencing Guidelines so long as the court provides a clear analysis of the reason that justifies the harsher penalty.
(Updated December 2007)

Appeals court held it unreasonable for a trial judge to impose a sentence of 60 months’ probation when the Sentencing Guidelines recommend a sentence of 7-8 years’ in prison, possibly reduced to 5 years’ for cooperation in investigation. The judge must impose a sentence justified by the Guidelines.
(Updated December 2007)

Appeals court held that parties in the U.S. who coordinated the sale of illegal drugs outside of the country could not be convicted of violating U.S. drug laws since the statutes do not apply to violations that occur outside of the U.S.
(Updated November 2007)

Appeals court held that when a jury acquitted a criminal defendant on one of two charges, and could not reach a verdict on the second charge for the same action, that there could not be a retrial of the second charge or it would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
(Updated November 2007)

Appeals court held that the government could file a lien to try to help payment of restitution owed as part of a criminal conviction. There is no time limit when such liens may be filed and they are good for up to 20 years when filed.
(Updated October 2007)

Appeals court rejected a light sentence imposed on convicted felon as not reasonable. The Sentencing Guidelines are generally to be followed closely; judges are not to deviate from them because they may not think they are a good idea.
(Updated May 2007)

Supreme Court held that a RICO claim of criminal extortion against federal employees, by a land owner who was pressured to give a federal agency an easement, fails. There may be common law claims for trespass, or administrative claims of improper procedure, but there is no federal claim of extortion allowed in this instance.
(Updated August 2007)

Appeals court rejected a light sentence imposed on convicted felon as not reasonable. The Sentencing Guidelines are generally to be followed closely; judges are not to deviate from them because they may not think they are a good idea.
(Updated May 2007)

Georgia high court upheld a conviction for violation of state identify theft law, ruling that federal identity theft law did not prohibit state laws from addressing such matters.
(Updated March 2007)

Appeals court held that criminal offenses that are tied to the same action, but have different consequences, will not be treated as one offense for purposes of sentencing under the sentencing guidelines.
(Updated March 2007)

Appeals court held that a person confronted with deadly force has the right to use deadly force in self-defense. In such situation, where the party does not initiate the contact and has a right to be in the location involved, there is no duty to retreat from the party that imposes the threat.
(Updated February 2007)

Appeals court affirmed the conviction of corporate officers and the liability of their employing corporation in an effort to bribe the leader of a state legislature to secure passage of legislation favorable to company interests.
(Updated January 2007)

Utah high court held that fraud over a period of time to get money from victims who fell for the scam was one scheme, and the losses could be added together to impose a harsher felony conviction.
(Updated January 2007)

Court held that a jury could convict a government administrator for making false statements about a matter he was involved in despite the fact that the administrator was not told during the internal investigation that his statements could become the basis of criminal charges.
(Updated December 2006)

Supreme Court held that even if a company engaged in behavior that could be a RICO violation, the parties who are the direct victims of the illegal activity have a cause of action, not those who cannot show proximate cause of losses alleged to have resulted from the illegal behavior.
(Updated December 2006)

Appeals court upheld a conviction for fraud. To bolster the case against defendant, a book he authored that described the fraud could be used as evidence to show that he understood the scheme very well.
(Updated December 2006)

Appeals court held that the district court improperly deviated from the federal Sentencing Guidelines by imposing a sentence that was too light. The defendants appeal is rejected and the court will re-sentence the defendant in compliance with the Guidelines.
(Updated October 2006)

Appeals court held that evidence was not improperly obtained when police searched the outside grounds around a residence when they were concerned about the location of a woman. Evidence found related to another matter could be used in prosecution.
(Updated August 2006)

Supreme Court held that anticipatory warrants may be issued so long as the judge or magistrate determined that it is probable that contraband, evidence of a crime, or a fugitive will be on the described premises when the warrant is executed.
(Updated July 2006)

California high court held that a person charged with selling unregistered securities has an affirmative defense that he believed the securities were exempt from registration and the jury should have been so instructed.
(Updated May 2006)

Georgia high court held that the state constitution requires criminal acts to be prosecuted in the county where the act occurred. Since identity fraud can have an impact in more than one county, the crime may be prosecuted not just in the county where the theft of identify information occurred.
(Updated March 2006)

Appeals court reversed a conviction of a gas station worker convicted of selling pseudoephedrine, a legal drug used in making methamphetamine. The government failed to show that the worker knew the substance would be used in that manner. Mere possession and sale of pseudoephedrine was not sufficient for conviction.
(Updated February 2006)